This kind of technique works for huge complicated software things (indeed, it makes them possible). It should do at least as well for huge complicated legal things.

we also need all the laws ever in any congress…like ‘thomas’ does to the 93rd congress now

If you offered a presentation of that session online that included the context of running commentary and solid background information, as well as an opportunity for discussion for all participants at different levels, you would get a lot of people very, very engaged in the process.

The background research, live commentary, and reports from within the room would all require considerable expertise and person-power, but all of these resources and energy basically exist already for key or controversial policy issues. For the most part you just need to aggregate them and present it all in an open architecture that encourages participation. Since many sessions are already webcast, it would be relatively easy to build this kind of technical infrastructure around that. Then it’s there to use whenever it’s called for, especially on issues in the public eye like immigration, health care, and telecom rewrites.

If you want, I can show you some time what I’m talking about. Indymedia did this to great effect (especially from 1999 – 2001) with distant, opaque institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. They (we, I should say) presented minute-by-minute reports from IMF and WB summit meetings, concurrent protests, and shadow conferences. Millions of people went to the website at those moments, bringing attention to the process and giving people the inspiration, research, and tools for further engagement.

In the realm of the markup session, all this proposal would really be doing is leveling the information playing field with the dozens of lobbyists (who cut into the room thanks to the linewaiter system – and not to put those folks out of a job, but you could make the whole process more democratic by offering seats by lottery). They sit there sending regular text messages to the committee staffers, pointing to pre-written sound bites and specific page numbers from carefully-prepared packets of so-called information.

I’m not saying we should toss the legislative process down a slippery slope of American Idol-style voting, but a little transparency where it really counts goes a long way in this world.

Here’s my original blog post on this idea: http://josh.fm/2006/04/28/is-this-what-democracy-looks-like/

Thanks for the helpful work you’re doing.

The trick is to adopt a common programming tool called “Version Control.” As legislators draft bills, they should be stored in a “Bill repository. ” Any member of congress could change a Bill (subject to the usual parliamentary rules for such things), and (this is key) *the whole Internet could see the current version or any previous version.* Advanced software tools would allow people to search for who changed what and when, to view how a Bill evolves, to find pork, and to see how a legislator’s actions compare to who funds his campaign contributions.

I have written about this at greater length, including my response to possible objections, here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/16/61640/452
and here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/12/172359/39

If you think these ideas might be of interest to your group, I’d be happy to adopt them for an essay for your site. Additionally, if you could put me in touch with anyone who might be interested in discussing further, that would be greatly appreciated.